@Flop: "Is there a sign which will cancel a 'no cycling' sign?
There are 'cycle route/path signs and 'end of cycle route' signs.
<url>
There are also signs which are similar to the 'no cycling' sign but with 
a diagonal red slash. Presumably these are also 'no cycling'.
<url>
I pass a sign, having dismounted - but the is no indication when I can 
continue on my bicycle.
Flop"
    @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 
12:45:02 on Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Flop <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
There are generally not signs showing the end of restrictions. Think 
about locations with "No Motor Vehicles" (the low-flying motorcycles 
sign) or weight restrictions on a bridge.
Roland Perry"
    @davidmcn: "<quote>
Maybe the "no cycling" sign with "End" under it? But usually it's
fairly obvious what it applies to e.g. a pedestrianised area, or it's
a road where you cannot push your bike because pedestrians are also
prohibited."
    @johnbriggs4: "<quote>
But there *is* a sign for the end of "No Motor Vehicles": it is the low 
flying vehicles sign in *grey* on a white background (either circular, 
or rectangular if there is additional text) with a diagonal 
black-and-white stripe through it (i.e. five thin black stripes close 
together as a single band). Only today I passed a similar one for the 
end of "No Goods Vehicles". If there was one for the end of "No 
Cycling", it would take the same form.
John Briggs"
    @Flop: "<quote>
But how do the motor vehicles get to the sign for 'end of "No Motor 
Vehicles" '?
It seems somewhat superfluous.
Flop"
    @johnbriggs4: "<quote>
In that case, the sign would be for the benefit of other vehicles, 
horses and pedestrians - and quite possibly buses, if they are exempted 
(I can point you to a "No Motor Vehicles" sign with "Except Buses".)
John Briggs"
    @insertmysurnamehere: "<quote>
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions do not show one.
....
It is whn you pass a cycling prohibited sign that is facing the other 
way to the way you are travelling.
Colin Bignell"
    @usenet: "On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:50:02 +0000, Flop put finger to keyboard and typed:
<quote>
It acts primarily as information for non-motorised traffic. Eg, at the end
of a pedestrianised section of a city street, it's a warning that "here be
vehicles" for pedestrians or cyclists who pass it.
Mark
Blog: <url>
Stuff: <url>"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
That's not a prescribed combination  Direction 21(1) of the Traffic 
Signs General Directions 2002 (SI 2002/3113 part II) doesn't allow plate 
645 ("End") be used with sign 951 (no cycling).
On the other hand, I know that DfT has issued special directions 
permitting that combination in a few places around Cambridge, so it can 
be done.
Ben Harris"
    @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 
21:50:02 on Sun, 14 Nov 2010, Flop <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
They could have arrived there by following the directions of a policeman 
in uniform. The sign marks the point at which they no longer need the 
policeman's assistance.
Roland Perry"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
The circular version is not prescribed, so would need special 
authorisation from DfT.  The rectangular one is probably just diagram 
618.4 (end of pedestrian zone).
That's the only prescribed circular sign of that form (diagram 622.2).  
All the other prescribed signs with a black-and-white stripe are 
rectangular.
There is no such sign in the Regulations.
Ben Harris"
    @a24061a: "<quote>
I had no idea there was legal provision for "Stopping place for buses
used for carrying tourists to allow passengers to take photographs"
until now."
    @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 21:50:03 on Mon, 15 
Nov 2010, Adam Funk <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
Perhaps these are provided in National Parks?
But a more general point is that having an apparently definitive list of 
sign (and combinations) leaves us wondering what the legal status is of 
signs (such as near Cambridge recently) that say "No entry - Except 
Guided buses".
They'd only have a legal basis if the DfT has individually approved 
them, but how is the motorist supposed to know if such an approval has 
been given? And if the "except" plate is in fact unlawfully present, 
does it make the whole sign (including the "No entry" part) unlawful 
too?
Or is it the TRO, rather than the signage which makes such a 
restriction? In which case, unless there are rules about only making 
TROs which are capable of being lawfully signed, the rules about signage 
are becoming increasingly moot.
ps There are some bus lanes in Nottingham signed for "Buses and 
wheelchair adapted taxis" (I forget the exact words) - how can one 
determine the legality of those?
Roland Perry"
    @insertmysurnamehere: "<quote>
There are two signs; a prohibition and a plate giving exceptions to the 
prohibition. If the supplementary plate were not lawful, then it would 
be the exemption to the prohibition that would not apply, not the 
prohibition itself.
As you say, it is the TRO that creates a restriction and the sign is 
only there to ensure that road users are aware of it. The Regulations 
exist to ensure that the signs are of a consistent design and variations 
being approved as the need was recognised goes back at least to the 1930s.
Not a problem, unless you end up in Court for ignoring them.
Colin Bignell"
    @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 10:32:16 on Tue, 16 Nov 
2010, Steve Walker <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
Indeed - if there's a plate on a no-entry sign saying "Except 
Cycles"[1], and that was an unlawful plate, it's a bit rich if the way 
you find out is getting hauled off to court.
[1] An infamously unlawful combination, according to most sources. But 
do exist in the wild.
Roland Perry"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
It would be unlawful for the traffic authority to erect the signs 
without authorisation, so motorists should be able to assume that all 
non-prescribed signs they see are authorised.
I don't think so, but I don't know of any relevant case law.
That depends on the sign in question.  The signs listed in Regulation 
10(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations are directly effective, but 
others just indicate the existence of a TRO (or equivalent).  An 
additional complication is that some of the directly effective signs may 
only lawfully be placed if there's an underlying statutory provision.
While there aren't such laws, there are laws requiring that TROs _be_ 
lawfully signed (regulation 18(1), Local Traffic Authorities' Traffic 
Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996).  This has been 
interpreted by the courts to mean that unsigned TROs are at best 
unenforceable, and this might well extend to ones indicated by unlawful 
signs.
Ask DfT.  They seem to keep records of every authorisation they issue, 
though pre-1992 ones are only indexed on paper and some of the plans and 
diagrams have gone missing.  Electronic indexes for 1992-2009 are 
available from 
<<url>  
I'll request a list of the 2010 authorisations in the new year.
Ben Harris"
    @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 09:15:05 
on Tue, 16 Nov 2010, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" 
<"insertmysurnamehere>"@giganews.com> remarked:
<quote>
But what if a sign makes someone "aware" of a situation which conflicts 
with the TRO. Sometimes these will be in the road user's favour, 
sometimes not.
I suppose I'm asking for some sort of Kitemark that would be applied to 
generally unapproved signs, which had been exceptionally approved in 
that specific location.
Sadly, you can't rely upon the traffic engineers to get it right every 
time (eg one of the worst offenders are bollards with a "keep left" 
signed, when traffic also has to pass to the right of them). This is one 
in Cambridge that I complained about (and has since been fixed) 
<url> but there are at least two more in other parts 
of the City, eg: <url>
Roland Perry"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
If it's in the road user's favour, that renders the TRO unenforceable 
(at least insofar as it's not signed).  If a sign indicates a 
restriction that's not in a TRO, then it would only be an offence to 
disobey it if (a) the sign is one to which section 36 applies (see 
regulation 10(1)), and (b) the sign is lawfully placed.  For many signs, 
the latter will only be true if the sign is indicating a statutory 
provision (direction 7), so if the sign doesn't correctly reflect the 
TRO, it will be unlawful and hence unenforceable.
Ben Harris"
    @insertmysurnamehere: "<quote>
I would expect that obeying the sign would provide a complete defence 
against not complying with the TRO.
In a recent case in Sussex, a motorist successfully used a sign she 
claimed was confusing as a defence against a parking offence, even 
though the sign was completely compliant and in accordance with the 
waiting order.
I'm not sure whether variations are approved for a specific location or 
simply approved for general use under some sort of ministerial instruction.
Not surprising, given that their bible, the Traffic Signs Manual, makes 
War and Peace look like a short story.
The one I see quite often is a bollard with two downward pointing arrows 
used where two roads diverge, although it should indicate that you can 
pass the bollard either side and still reach the same destination, e.g. 
on a traffic island in a one-way street.
Colin Bignell"
    @roland: "In message <ibtrqq$70b$<email_address>>, at 12:05:02 on Tue,=20
16 Nov 2010, Ben Harris <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
I wonder what the penalty is (against the Highways Authority) when they=20
erect unlawful signs?
e
People have been let off parking fines when it turned out that the=20
signage (or white lines) weren't up to the required spec.
Result! Wheelchair Accessible Taxis in Bus Lanes Nottingham City
         2-Apr-09  7-May-09      Bus Lanes =E2=80=93 Bus Priority
Although the sign says "except Buses and Wheelchair Accessible Taxis",=20
so there are presumably two things being authorised here:
   Changing the TRO to exclude normal taxis, but include the wheelchair
    accessible ones
   Inventing a new custom sign which mentions "Buses and Wheelchair
    accessible Taxis
ps I assume you've looked for "Except Guided Buses"?
=20
Roland Perry"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
As far as I know, there's no explicit penalty, but DfT can require them 
to correct the signs, and can correct them itself (and recover the costs 
from the traffic authority) if that fails.  The relevant legislation is 
sections 69 and 70 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Traffic authorities don't need authorisation to make TROs, so the 
authorisation will just be for the special signs.
I know that Cambridgeshire County Council were still discussing those 
signs with DfT at the start of this year, so I'll be looking out for 
them (and requesting copies of the authorisations) in next year's list.  
That should also see the first special directions for "[no entry] Except 
cycles".
Ben Harris"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
The authorisations are location-specific (in all the cases I've seen), 
but DfT do have a bunch of drawings (the "NP" and "NS" series) of 
standard non-prescribed signs:
<<url>
Traffic authorities still have to get authorisation before using these 
signs.
Ben Harris"
    @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 13:40:02 
on Tue, 16 Nov 2010, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" 
<"insertmysurnamehere>"@giganews.com> remarked:
<quote>
In that case you just end up somewhere you weren't expecting - rather 
than potentially breaking the law!
Roland Perry"
    @roland: "In message <ibu9fr$461$<email_address>>, at 15:55:03 on Tue, 
16 Nov 2010, Ben Harris <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
So they can make up whatever absurd regulations they like?
And there have been signs like that in the wild for years - this picture 
about 10yrs old: <url>
Roland Perry"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
Not quite.  Sections 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 set 
out the limits on what an order may provide.  These are generally aimed 
at onerousness rather than absurdity, though, so a restriction that 
banned yellow cars from a road between 9am and 10am would seem to be 
permitted.  I suspect, though, that DfT would refuse to authorise any 
sign to indicate this, which would make it unenforceable.
Ben Harris"
    @Flop: "<quote>
 From your link....
do you REALLY have to obey NP 3015?
and, if so, how much of a penalty can they impose?
Flop"
    @a24061a: "<quote>
I've seen lots of them.  How are the local highway authorities
supposed to mark such a situation (e.g., at the beginning of a
contraflow lane on an otherwise one-way street)?"
    @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 21:05:02 on Tue, 16 
Nov 2010, Adam Funk <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
You are supposed to have a small island, and sign it like this:
(Not necessarily with the red road paint) <url>
Roland Perry"
    @garethhardy1: ""Roland Perry"  wrote...
<quote>
Aren't those particular restrictions ended implicitly? i.e. when you re-join 
a road after detouring to avoid the start of the restriction, the 
restriction must have ended. With "no cycling" you can continue as long as 
you dismount, so there's no need to detour, so the restriction needs to end.
A similar situation can arise on motorways where the matrix signs impose 
(say) a 50 limit, but there's never an end of limit matrix. It seems they've 
been left active by mistake,, but at what point can you speed up without 
breaking the law? You might assume it's at the next blank matrix - if so 
where is that written? "
    @roland: "In message <h6MEo.83174$<email_address>>, at 08:15:02 on Wed, 17 
Nov 2010, GP Hardy <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
Yes, but you don't necessarily re-join the road at exactly the point the 
restriction ends. There are also circumstances when you can be directed 
(by police) to ignore the sign, and therefore it could be argued that 
you need to know when you are allowed to proceed under your own 
initiative. The default seems to be "when you see a sign in your 
rear-view mirror".
Don't they normally have "end" on the final one (when it's the older 
style in the central reservation) and a "de-restricted logo" for the 
newer gantry-fitted ones?
I don't know; but first I'd look at what the matrix signs mean - if it's 
"this is the limit from here to the next matrix sign" you wouldn't need 
a 'cancelling' one.
Roland Perry"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
I would expect so, but this will depend on the precise terms in which 
it's authorised.  Section 64(5) RTRA 1984 allows an authorisation to 
cause section 36 RTA 1988 to apply to an authorised sign, and since 
section 36 applies to the standard wig-wag signal (diagram 3014), I'd 
expect it to be made to apply to the miniature one when that's 
authorised.
I think less than for standard wig-wag signals.  Standard ones are 
specified signs for the purposes of the relevant paragraph in the Road 
Traffic Offenders Act 1988, so carry a level 3 fine, discretionary 
disqualification, and three obligatory penalty points.  As far as I can 
tell, authorised signs cannot be specified for this paragraphs (s36(5) 
RTA 1988 only says "regulations"), so the penalty for disobeying a sign 
to NP 3015 would be at worst a level 3 fine.
Ben Harris"
    @bjh21: "<quote>
There are two options.  One is an island separating the contra-flow 
cycle lane from the rest of the road, with "no entry" signs on either 
side of the rest and a "cycles only" sign by the cycle lane.  The other 
is just to use "no motor vehicles" signs.  Paragraphs 17.19 and 17.26 of 
chapter 3 of the traffic signs manual give fuller details.
Ben Harris"
    @insertmysurnamehere: "....
<quote>
Unless the matrix sign is within a variable speed limit zone, when the 
limit appears within a red circle, the speed limit is only advisory.
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Schedule 11 Part 1 
Diagram 6001.
Colin Bignell"
    @johnbriggs4: "<quote>
And should generally be ignored, as the obstruction which provoked it 
usually cleared hours ago!
John Briggs"
    @a24061a: "<quote>
Yes, I made a point of looking at a few since you posted that, and the
ones I'm familiar with do have separate bike & no-entry signs, with an
island (and the red paint too).  I'm sure I've seen no-entry "except
cycles" somewhere, but I can't recall where now."
    @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 20:35:09 on Mon, 22 
Nov 2010, Adam Funk <email_address> remarked:
<quote>
This one's in Peterborough:
<url>
(I took that photo about 8 years ago).
Roland Perry"
    @garethhardy1: ""Adam Funk"  wrote...
<quote>
And they allow people like you on the road????
;)
I think you can be forgiven for overlooking that one - especially as I've 
only discovered in this thread that the centre matrix speed "limit" on the 
motorway was simply advisory - and I've been on the road 20 years. "
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 36, "forum_name": "uk.legal.moderated.20140826.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-uk.legal.parquet'}